In interviews he gave to the media on the occasion of his retirement, Xi Nitzan was often asked about his criticism of him and the State Attorney's Office. Nitzan made sure to present a sensible and satisfying answer: Each defendant would impeach the considerations of the law enforcement system, and Netanyahu, like other defendants, is no exception.

The maneuver is clear: The attempt is to attribute the criticism to the investigators, which in turn allows the accused to be blamed on the public trust in the prosecution. This may be logical, but inaccurate: the fact is that most of the most concrete and critical allegations against Nitzan and the Prosecutor's Office come not from the defendants, but rather from professionals from the system or from other entities not specifically identified with Netanyahu's environment.

The valued Kinneret lawyer, for example, knows how Nitzan "maneuvered the system" at a pace trial, and when she approached him and asked to comment, he simply answered: "Who will believe you or me?" My head is not affiliated with Netanyahu or the right, to my knowledge, nor is it accused of anything. Why, then, is it urgent for her to run from studio to studio and reveal the truth behind the attorney general?

My head testimony is reinforced by Judge Hila Gerstel, who wriggled in front of the camera in an attempt to make it clear that Nitzan was not a man whose truth is a candle to his feet, without directly calling him a "liar." Gerstel is not one of Netanyahu's people, nor is she accused of anything, and yet her testimony reinforces that of my head.

These two women are backed by another woman: Dr. Maya Forman, who gave professional testimony on defense in the trial of Zdorov. The State Attorney apparently did not like her testimony, claiming a vengeance that almost destroyed her career.

Journalist Moti Gilat also knows that from the State Attorney's office there are many voices claiming that Nitzan destroyed the system in his dangerous conduct and left "scorched earth" behind him. And Gilat is not one of Netanyahu's supporters, nor is he accused of it. Why, then, is it urgent for him to share this information?

The profile that emerges from professionals who have been in professional contact with Nitzan is unimaginable, and none of them have any covert agenda or political interests. These are serious things that require discussion.

But in our media we celebrate Nitzan's retirement as a national event. In my head, Gerstell, Foreman - wait. Instead, Shay Nitzan's son, who will talk a little about Dad, is being broadcast. It was part of a media effort to create an alternative profile for the bud, and divert the discussion from harsh criticism through emphasizing family life "under threat and security."

Because for many people in the media, Nitzan does need an alternate profile. If it turns out that the person who persecuted Netanyahu is far from being a professional perfection, someone may still doubt the motives and attacks of Netanyahu's files. And this communication will never allow.